Attempted robbery of OCer in Washington state WalMart!

[WalkingWolf]

There are a hundred and one ways for a firearm to be spotted, and this is an assumption that any carrier should have. Sad thing is, clearly some carriers have no clue they are being watched, for their gun, or other reasons. That is poor situational awareness, something that seems to happen less with open carry, and it is clear that in the incident in the OP, it was his only time to open carry, the rest of the time CC. Whether he was armed or not, a criminal checks out the victim, if the criminal did not, he clearly was not after his firearm.

There is accounts in almost every state that has concealed carry of a CCer being targeted for a crime, yet little evidence of OC, except for very isolated events. One could claim that having a gun visible even temporary is a invitation to a crime. But the criminals tell a different story in studies. They prefer unarmed citizens. And what does a citizen look like when they have the weapon perfectly concealed?

Most times the armed victim comes out on top, but they are still a victim. I prefer not to be a victim, and ONLY I have control over that. NOT you, and not G21!

 

[utbagpiper]

There are a hundred and one ways for a firearm to be spotted, and this is an assumption that any carrier should have. Sad thing is, clearly some carriers have no clue they are being watched, for their gun, or other reasons. That is poor situational awareness, something that seems to happen less with open carry, and it is clear that in the incident in the OP, it was his only time to open carry, the rest of the time CC. Whether he was armed or not, a criminal checks out the victim, if the criminal did not, he clearly was not after his firearm.

There is accounts in almost every state that has concealed carry of a CCer being targeted for a crime, yet little evidence of OC, except for very isolated events. One could claim that having a gun visible even temporary is a invitation to a crime. But the criminals tell a different story in studies. They prefer unarmed citizens. And what does a citizen look like when they have the weapon perfectly concealed?

Most times the armed victim comes out on top, but they are still a victim. I prefer not to be a victim, and ONLY I have control over that. NOT you, and not G21!

This is all true. And remember, I'm not the least bit hostile to OC. Just like I'm not the least bit hostile to CC.

It is just that our arguments are stronger when they are factually accurate.

The moment a gun is spotted--by whatever means--the carrier no longer looks like an unarmed victim to whomever spotted the gun. In the very rare case a criminal or nut case might be looking to target a gun carrier, those with visible guns (whether OCd or CCd however poorly) are the natural target. I believe this happens FAR less frequently than does a criminal seeing a gun and deciding that he'd rather pick an easier target.

In theory carrying a gun might cause some to take more risks or behave worse than when they were unarmed. Heinlein predicted and we here assert that the vast majority of the time, just the opposite happens.

In similar fashion, in theory, CCing might cause some folks to drop their SA compared to what they would do if they OCd. But nothing about CC forces a carrier to drop his SA. Indeed, one could argue that if the carrier is aware of his longer access time when CCing, he might strive to maintain even higher SA than when he is OCing and relying upon the deterrence factor and easy access.

In theory, almost anything can be postulated with what sounds like reasonable arguments.

In practice, we are still dealing with such small numbers of incidents against either CCers or OCers, and with so little data to analyze from those incidents that I don't believe a case can be made one way or the other based on safety or other considerations. I believe it boils down to personal preference, legal permissibility, comfort, etc.

In almost every case, I think a gun on the person is safer than the gun in the car, at home, or otherwise not available. Whichever method makes possession of the gun most likely then becomes the best method for that situation.

Charles

 

[The Truth]

This argument is tired. I might have my own reasons for disagreeing with permit processes but I don't disagree with the act of CC. It's disappointing seeing either side arguing about advantages, be they tactical or political, and it's especially disappointing that the government may specify which is legal.

These articles all seem to have an odd focal point, and are factually inconsistent.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Leaving guns completely out of it. Some citizens go their whole life without being a victim, others are victims multiple times. SA is more important that carrying a gun. Not blaming victims, but walking around with one's head in the clouds is more likely to make them a victim. That is mitigated by not looking like a victim and paying attention to surroundings, and people. As well as not going to dumb places that have high potential for victims. What we do know that CCers are targeted more than OCers, only a few incidents over the US, yet CC incidents in every state that allows CC.

What it comes down to is personal choice, and responsibility, the backbone of liberty. No one can tell me to CC, or I will tell them to blank off, and I do not, and have never told anyone to not CC. It is none of my business, and how I carry is none of yours. Condescending is not going to change that, no amount of words is going to change it.

Your imagined hatred of CC is nothing more than liberty minded folks getting tired of some folks trying to shove CC down our throats. Just the same as trying to shove excessive government down our throats.

 

[Difdi]

Oh? So, now OCers are not well-trained? None have "considerable self-defense training"?

Don't forget, technically police are OCers. If they claim all OCers are poorly trained...

Recently in Florida a crazed anti gun lunatic tackled a CCer he was so terrified of an armed mundane.

Which indicates that on some level, the folks who claim to be threatened by private gun ownership, or who claim semi-automatic guns are military weapons that are too deadly for civilian ownership are well aware they aren't. If they truly felt that threatened, they'd be running not attacking.

It's not the first time someone was assaulted by someone trying to steal their gun

People get attacked for all kinds of reasons. Robbery of wallet, jewelry, gun, shoes, etc. Dislike of skin color, etc. Just because the attacker is crazy. We don't necessarily know that the attack wouldn't have happened anyway if he'd been completely unarmed.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

another option

I have not seen any reasoning for the attack. Would someone, knowing the other party has a weapon, attack in such a manner? I offer another option.

The man was "homeless", He was hungry. He wanted to go to jail. He saw what appeared to be a LEO. (You have all heard it before. "Are you a Cop?".) He rapps the guy with a bat and Voila, he has a home. Until he comes clean and tells us why he did it, it will all be conjecture.

 

[325rto]

I have not seen any reasoning for the attack. Would someone, knowing the other party has a weapon, attack in such a manner? I offer another option.

The man was "homeless", He was hungry. He wanted to go to jail. He saw what appeared to be a LEO. (You have all heard it before. "Are you a Cop?".) He rapps the guy with a bat and Voila, he has a home. Until he comes clean and tells us why he did it, it will all be conjecture.

What I also got from the article is that he had a history of mental illness. Perhaps that played a major part in his actions?

 

[WalkingWolf]

What I also got from the article is that he had a history of mental illness. Perhaps that played a major part in his actions?

That is what I thought, maybe he was hearing voices.

 

[solus]

sorry might be true but....

that is a defence tactic to leak to the news their client has past mental issues to assist the court to view the perb in a more lenient light.

ipse